No-Budget Career Path

Been thinking recently….

Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson are both examples of individuals who started their careers with miniscule budgets. One went from “The Evil Dead” to “Spiderman”, the other went from “Bad Taste” to “Lord Of The Rings”. Of course, this is way beyond most of our wildest dreams. But there are people out there who have, more recently (in the current digital age), started making films with nothing and gone on to make pretty nice careers for themselves.

(I’m a horror fan through and through (hence the mention of Raimi and Jackson above, as opposed to, say, Christopher Nolan or Robert Rodriguez), so the couple of examples I have below fall squarely into that genre. If people can think of any other good examples outside of horror, feel free to list them.)

Adam Wingard made “Pop Skull” for $2,000. Of course, before that he made “Home Sick”, but that didn’t turn out so well. “Pop Skull” was really the jumping off point for his career. That then led on to “A Horrible Way To Die”, and he’s since gone on to make segments for “VHS”, “VHS 2” and “The ABC’s Of Death”. Most successfully, though, he made last years “You’re Next” (produced in 2011, but not released until 2013). The success of “You’re Next” will no doubt lead him on to bigger (meaning bigger budget) projects. And I LOVED “You’re Next”…

However, the most appropriate for my own goals would have to be the Soska Sisters. They made “Dead Hooker In A Trunk” for around $2,500. It’s a fun little film that gained them a lot of attention. It’s by no means perfect, but it’s enjoyable. This must’ve given them the confidence to raise the money (allegedly, by re-mortgaging their parents house) to produce “American Mary”. This movie gained them (at least some) critical acclaim (along with an extended fan base). Since then, they have directed “See No Evil 2”, a film which, although being produced (by WWE) for the DVD market, will no doubt have had a reasonable budget and paid them well. They’ve also been assigned a short for “The ABC’s Of Death 2”. Of course, the Soska’s themselves are very marketable people, especially to a horror audience. Something which very few of us could also claim.

Regardless, that’s what I’m aiming for; a Soska style, no-budget career path. Slowly build up the budgets and (basically) hope for the best. And making something like “Dead Hooker…” isn’t out of the realms of possibility for any of us. Having it catch on and gain the kind of attention it did is another matter entirely.

Now I just need to actually make my own “Dead Hooker…”

What are the chances?
 
I'd guess, because the number of wannabe filmmakers greatly outweighs the number of films produced, each year, with a $100M budget. Maybe by 10,000 / 1? Maybe more?

It's not an impossibility. Just improbable. What I would call "beyond my wildest dreams". Do you not agree with that Directorik? Is it actually easier than it's made out to be?

Of course, I'm sure Peter Jackson thought the same thing and things worked out alright for him in the end.

If I can ebb out a small career making movies, I'd be incredibly happy. Going from no budget, to low budget offers that possibility. I'd still consider it a long shot though.
 
There's a lot of wannabe filmmakers. The reason there are so many failed wannabe directors is because they all make the same mistakes. If you're a smart person who finds a way to get your foot in the door, then you have a chance. It's hard, but most definitely not impossible.
 
Writing an interesting screenplay is actually damn difficult.

Many newbie film makers start with a weak or horrible script. That's a terrible start.

The next huge failing is typically audio.

Acceptable visuals are not easy to capture but with decent lighting, lens, care, some degree of experience and a field monitor, it's achievable. Now great visuals are a different story, they're much harder to achieve.

But acceptable audio... So many newbie film makers fail on that one.

Then we have the cost: I have spent likely around $12k and up on:

  • camera (Canon 6D)
  • lens (3x Sigma EX range)
  • audio (recorder, dedicated pre-amp, excellent mic, boom, boom stand, wireless lav gear etc)
  • field monitor
  • tripod
  • monopod
  • Blackbird Camera Stabilizer ($600 or so)
  • GoPro HERO Black 3+ (and associated gear including 4x batteries, multiple mounts, $60 Anker extended battery etc)
  • post-production suite (Adobe Premier Pro suite, $2k or so), hard drives (3x 3GB drives for PP, 2x 3GB backup drives)
  • powerful laptop capable of HD editing and 30" monitor
  • batteries (8x for my Canon and field monitor) and associated cables and misc gear
...it sure as hell adds up fast and to a considerable amount

Then we have the fact that to produce quality material, you have to involve others. No one is an expert in all the domains: writing, acting, directing, filming, audio, post-production (visuals, audio), marketing etc.

Then the fact that most newbie film makers cannot afford to pay those 'others'. So talent does not show up, audio-post is done by inexperienced hands etc.

Locations also suffer. Can you afford to rent some locations? Can you get the gear you need there etc?

So it's not that surprising that many newbie film makers fail badly. Most unfortunately fail from the very start: they begin with a weak or terrible script! :no:
 
Last edited:
Now I just need to actually make my own “Dead Hooker…”
context.jpg
 
Paul, thanks for the write up. Great food for thought.

The reason there are so many failed wannabe directors is because they all make the same mistakes.

What do you think is these same mistakes?
 
hold on, its not all about whether you can make a good film or not, infact im pretty sure a good film is just less than 30% of the success package.

if you dont know anyone, if you dont market your film right, if you dont make a plan, then all these things means your great film will collect dust and no one will know you.

alot of the mistakes people make arent mistakes, the real reason is that they are shit filmmakers, i dont just mean making the films in general, im talking the whole production process from start to finish promotion etc etc.

you must always have a market in mind, a commercial sense, if you dont, then who the hell will fund your next venture?

until of course your rich enough in which case you can do what the hell you want, but the transistion from small fry to big fry has a whole lot to do with contacts, if you dont know someone, then no one wants to know you.

and if you ask "if no one wants to know you then how do you get to know someone" this is what seperates a good filmmaker from a shit one.
 
What do you think is these same mistakes?

Not enough preplanning
Bad audio
Friends as actors
Too much dialogue
Shaky cam
Slow pace
Fight and stunt scenes suck
Not enough time for the main shoot


David Lynch and Peter Jackson took 4 years to make ERASERHEAD and BAD TASTE. I hate hearing about how some people shoot a movie in 3 days or one week. I'm more impressed when an indie has some elaborate set ups, where you can feel a great deal of care. Raimi's EVIL DEAD certainly falls in that category.

The shortest point from bad filmmaker to good filmmaker is to use good actors. They make sucky dialogue convincing, fake a better gunshot hit, look more convincing in a fight, give a performance a viewer can follow during a bad shot (and not notice the bad shot), and they project their voice - so that even the inexperienced boom guy (who is holding his mic too far back) can pick it up.

In my early filmmaking years, I was too proud of a director too admit that I needed actors. Sure, you can coax friends, but only so far.
 
Last edited:
What do you think is these same mistakes?

I think that you mean "What, do you think, are these same mistakes?"

A poor grasp of language and grammar.

An inability to honestly assess their own work and their own talents.

Poor communications skills.

Poor people skills.

Deplorable management skills.

A complete inability to make necessary compromises.

Cutting costs in all the wrong places.

Probably the worst is an almost criminal lack of patience.
 
I think that you mean "What, do you think, are these same mistakes?"

A poor grasp of language and grammar.

An inability to honestly assess their own work and their own talents.

Poor communications skills.

Poor people skills.

Deplorable management skills.

A complete inability to make necessary compromises.

Cutting costs in all the wrong places.

Probably the worst is an almost criminal lack of patience.


Agreed.

I would add..

Ego.
 
Yep, (the grammar Nazi caught me) that's exactly what I mean. ;)


Proper language skills can definitely set you apart, and subtly marks you as more professional. It's also a good idea to get into the habit. One day you might make something that's almost as good as your ego says you are, and you'll be asked to make a proposal to a "big name," be it a production company, a corporate entity, a celebrity or a _____. As with all other habits - extensive preproduction, slating protocols, logs, call sheets, etc., etc., etc. - it prevents panic from setting in when you finally get that one big chance; it's nothing different except that it's a step (or three or five) up from where you are now.
 
It's not an impossibility. Just improbable. What I would call "beyond my wildest dreams". Do you not agree with that Directorik? Is it actually easier than it's made out to be?
How can I disagree with your dreams? No, it's not easier and if
it is beyond your wildest dreams I then I agree with you. I do
not agree with you that it is beyond most of our wildest dreams.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top